A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

The Contact Centre: Scope, Function & Overreach


⟡ ON THE CONTACT CENTRE’S PERSISTENT CONFUSION ABOUT ITS OWN AUTHORITY ⟡

Filed: 14 January 2026
Reference: SWANK/CONTACT-CENTRE/ROLE-SCOPE-01

Summary:
A formal clarification of the lawful scope, duties, and limits of Contact Centres providing supervised or supported family contact, and a record of the recurring institutional error of mistaking facilitation for control.

I. What Happened

In proceedings involving supervised or supported family contact, a Contact Centre was commissioned to provide a neutral environment in which parent–child contact could safely occur pursuant to a court order.

Over time, the Contact Centre’s conduct began to reflect an expanded conception of its role — one that exceeded facilitation and drifted toward behavioural management, conversational interference, and informal regulation.

This entry records the Contact Centre’s role as defined, not as sometimes performed.

II. What the Document Establishes

This entry establishes that:

• A Contact Centre is a service provider, not a decision-maker
• Its function is to enable contact, not to shape it
• Observation must remain factual, proportionate, and neutral
• Emotional expression is not misconduct
• Affection and reassurance are not safeguarding breaches
• The court — and only the court — determines the parameters of contact

III. Why SWANK Logged It

SWANK logged this entry because Contact Centre role drift is:

• Widespread
• Minimised as “practice”
• Rarely documented contemporaneously
• Routinely reframed as safeguarding

When facilitative services begin to police relationships, harm is not prevented — it is introduced.

This entry preserves the distinction.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989 – welfare and avoidance of unnecessary interference
• Family Procedure Rules 2010 – compliance with court orders
• Article 8 ECHR (proportionality and respect for family life)
• Contact Centre contractual and regulatory standards

A Contact Centre that exceeds remit does not enhance safety; it compromises welfare.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not supervision.
This is overreach.

We do not accept Contact Centres imposing rules not contained in court orders.
We reject the reframing of child distress as behavioural failure.
We will document every instance in which facilitation mutates into control.

Contact exists to preserve relationship —
not to police it.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London LLC ⟡

Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.

This is not feedback.
This is not complaint.
This is record.

Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation, education, and memory.
Because family relationships deserve dignity.
And overreach deserves an archive.

© SWANK London LLC
All formatting, structural logic, and jurisdictional phrasing reserved.
Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.